This map project began as an entry to Centerscape competition, but I got my ass handed to me on a plate. However, there seemed to be enough interest to keep the idea alive, and we don't have an ancient Mesopotamia map yet, so here we go. Obviously, the gameplay is no longer Centerscape; I am now working on the fertile crescent, with an eye on the Epic Adventures of Gilgamesh.

Stats:44 Territories. 7 regions.Neutral starts: Babylon and To Be Determined Coded starting positions: 1. Bull of Heaven & Assur; 2. Humbaba and Nineveh, 3. Mashu & UrBull of Heaven can be attacked only from Uruk, and only attack Uruk.Bonuses for holding 4 or 5 of the marked city-states between the Tigris-Euphrates rivers.Bonus for holding the three challenges: the Bull of Heaven, the scorpion guardians of Mashu, and Humbaba the keeper of the forests.

Gilgamesh-specific features: The Wilds in the north west are where Gilgamesh and Enkidu - after walking many leagues - face Humbaba and invoke the wrath of the gods. The Bull of Heaven (the physical manifestation of drought) lies at the gates of Uruk, and is where Enkidu fell. Shurupak is the city of the great flood as told in the epic, where Utnapishtim built the ark and carried two of each creature to safety. Mashu lies between two great mountains, protected by the scorpions who allow G' to pass in his search for eternal life. Dilmun is the land of the Gods, from which the sun rises, so it is in it's rightful place in the east; it is here that Gilgamesh travels, crossing the Great Darkness and the Waters of Death, to learn the secret of eternal life from Utnapishtim.

Last edited by oaktown on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:23 pm, edited 24 times in total.

Yay you made it a new map! Well, I guess it's your map but I think most people here like it (hence the 5 people agreeing to my claim that you should continue). I do have a question: what are the scorpion and lion (and others) for? and why only on one tert? And also at first glance: I'm not a big fan of the arrows. Again, it's up to you to continue it …

I'm just not feeling it. I think removing the Gilgamesh might make it better - call it Ancient Mesopotamia or something. The fact is, the Epic of Gilgamesh is really vague about place locations, and so it makes for a rather bad map. But I think Ancient Mesopotamia is a concept that can really be a hit.

One graphical thing: please ditch the multicolored mountains. Something like what Benn did on Wales would be nice. Props for not making them look like veins, though

ZeakCytho wrote:I'm just not feeling it. I think removing the Gilgamesh might make it better - call it Ancient Mesopotamia or something. The fact is, the Epic of Gilgamesh is really vague about place locations, and so it makes for a rather bad map. But I think Ancient Mesopotamia is a concept that can really be a hit.

One graphical thing: please ditch the multicolored mountains. Something like what Benn did on Wales would be nice. Props for not making them look like veins, though

ZeakCytho wrote:I'm just not feeling it. I think removing the Gilgamesh might make it better - call it Ancient Mesopotamia or something. The fact is, the Epic of Gilgamesh is really vague about place locations, and so it makes for a rather bad map. But I think Ancient Mesopotamia is a concept that can really be a hit.

One graphical thing: please ditch the multicolored mountains. Something like what Benn did on Wales would be nice. Props for not making them look like veins, though

That being said, I'd rather see you finish Route 66 before this.

I agree on the removing the Gilgamesh idea but disagree with removing the mountains. I like them the way they are and think it adds to it being unique. The Gilgamesh this is kind of off-putting, as the locations in the actual work weren't very specific to geographical locations. If you intend to keep Gilgamesh, you could intermingle it with the locations currently on the map and perhaps add in locations listed in versions of the story for an added spice and to make it relevant to Gilgamesh. It's a stretch but could prove interesting. It's been three years since I read whatever we covered of it, so I can't remember exact locations, but from a quick google there'd be plenty to work with. Or, perhaps you could use some sort of bonuses for recovering the tablets (as that's one of the bigger historical aspects of the Epic of Gilgamesh).

One problem I see, though, it currently has the same gameplay as 'Centerscape', no? If I wasn't feeling it (personally) I'm not sure I would put the amount of effort into it that's going to be necessary. The gameplay is going to need to be changed in order to be unique to the gameplay of Centerscape (I'd imagine at least), to avoid two of the same map with different graphics existing.

Graphics/idea wise, though, I love it. Renamed Ancient Mesopotamia or something along those lines or even adding in extra aspects to correspond with the Epic would make a great new map and I would totally be into it and play it often.

Incandenza wrote:Huh, I actually like the multi-color mountains and the Gilgamesh localization. They give the map flavor and help it come off like some sort of ancient mosaic.

Mountains aside, I really don't see that much Gilgamesh in this map. Sure, a few territories are references from the epic, but really, not that much would be changed by calling this Ancient Mesopotamia. The best flavor on this map, IMO, is the statue-guys standing at the bottom.

LED ZEPPELINER wrote:i think that its a pretty damn good looking map, maybe change the borders a little and stuff, (so that it is not exactly the same as centerscape) and give it a new title, i would play it

lgoasklucyl wrote:One problem I see, though, it currently has the same gameplay as 'Centerscape', no? If I wasn't feeling it (personally) I'm not sure I would put the amount of effort into it that's going to be necessary. The gameplay is going to need to be changed in order to be unique to the gameplay of Centerscape (I'd imagine at least), to avoid two of the same map with different graphics existing.

Whether or not the map has the same gameplay is neither here nor there really... Oak, what are your intentions in relation to altering borders/boundaries/bridges/barriers (I was going to mention one-way attacks and arrows but would have lost my alliteration!).

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

MrBenn wrote:Oak, what are your intentions in relation to altering borders/boundaries/bridges/barriers?

I guess a lot depends on whether or not we go Gilgamesh or just make it a Mesopotamia map. A historical map means geographical accuracy and losing the fictional territories in the north - the scorpion gates, humbaba, Dilmun, etc. - but we could add more cities in the fertile crescent since we would no longer be bound by the territory layout of the old map. And it could mean bonuses for control of rivers and overland trade routes in addition to regions.

A Gilgamesh map would mean more leeway in terms of where things sit, and would allow some more fantastical elements that I haven't drawn yet: the bull of heaven, humbaba, garden of the gods, etc. Ideally a Gilgamesh map would have fewer territories - all the lands in the west really have no place in the gilgamesh tales other than the fact that they existed in the same era.

Either way I'll be putting the rivers in the correct places - right now the river valleys are drawn to reflect the gameplay of the Centerscape map. Also, I'd probably cut the southern connection across the Arabian desert (unrealistic), and put the mountains in more geographically accurate places. But the tile wall look will definitely stay, and I have some ideas about how to make it look a bit more like a map painted onto a wall.

For the record, the idea for the look of this map came from the designs and colors of the Ishtar Gates, now housed in a Berlin museum. The mountains seem to be another love it/hate it situation (why always my mountains?) but I really like the color - it's a brightly painted tile wall after all, albeit faded by time and desert winds.

I agree this could become a very great map but I would make a few changes. At the bottom you give me the feel like this is made from tiles and I would like you to continue that all through the map. Also I like the use of arrows as bridges very original. I would like to see a better distinction between what is part of the playable territories and what is the surrounding area in the top left corner I became mildly confused.

i say keep the gilgamesh idea, but you could definitely change a lot and make it better. centerscape held back a lot of the potential in my opinion. if you don't wanna keep working on it, i would understand, especially since you would be making it not as a replacement for centerscape, but as a brand new map and that would take a lot of work.

oaktown wrote:For the record, the idea for the look of this map came from the designs and colors of the Ishtar Gates, now housed in a Berlin museum. The mountains seem to be another love it/hate it situation (why always my mountains?) but I really like the color - it's a brightly painted tile wall after all, albeit faded by time and desert winds.

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

The number of bridges/arrows In the red are (bottom-right) look awfully congested... Perhaps you could take out the Lagash/Eridu connection (which overlaps the terr name), and maybe move the Lagash/Susa link to Lagush/Eshnunna...

Actually.... I'm not too sure.... It's just that part of me feels like there are too many crossings??

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

As I said in the comp thread, I'm loving this map. I can see problems with it gameplay-wise though:

Dilmun (dark blue) and Wilds (Green) are the obivous early captures. Subartu and Sumer are pretty much never going to be held - there are simply too many borders to defend. Which is a shame, because that area of the map is traditionally a very important area of the world.

How would you feel about having some sort of bonus for holding x amount of territories that lie between the Tigris and the Euphrates? Like the Zeroes/Kates/Vals on Pearl harbour. That would bring more attention to the centre of the map early on, which I think would create a more widespread dynamic for the map.

e_i_pi wrote:How would you feel about having some sort of bonus for holding x amount of territories that lie between the Tigris and the Euphrates? Like the Zeroes/Kates/Vals on Pearl harbour. That would bring more attention to the centre of the map early on, which I think would create a more widespread dynamic for the map.

I totally agree - this is the cradle of civilization after all, so the territories with the Tigris/Euphrates valleys should be the focal point of the map. And I always love giving players incentive to start in regions that would traditionally be an unwise start (see India, berlin, eastern hemisphere).

Any suggestions on how this could best work? Perhaps a ziggurat symbol noting the major civilization centers within the rivers, and give +1 for holding any three, +2 for any four, etc. Or is this too Route 66?

e_i_pi wrote:How would you feel about having some sort of bonus for holding x amount of territories that lie between the Tigris and the Euphrates? Like the Zeroes/Kates/Vals on Pearl harbour. That would bring more attention to the centre of the map early on, which I think would create a more widespread dynamic for the map.

I totally agree - this is the cradle of civilization after all, so the territories with the Tigris/Euphrates valleys should be the focal point of the map. And I always love giving players incentive to start in regions that would traditionally be an unwise start (see India, berlin, eastern hemisphere).

Any suggestions on how this could best work? Perhaps a ziggurat symbol noting the major civilization centers within the rivers, and give +1 for holding any three, +2 for any four, etc. Or is this too Route 66?

Hmm. Two ways you can go with this:

The Territory BonusSomething like Berlin would be good, but Berlin uses x/2+1 territories as the cutoff for bonus, meaning only one player can have the bonus at a time. I would think allowing more than one player to achieve bonus would be good, given the sheer number of territories. 1 for 3, 2 for 5, 3 for 7 maybe, but I don't know. edbeard would be the one to grill about the bonus structure. Also, a problem with doing it this way is you'd potentially fall into the same trap experienced with USA Map Pack and Wales - ie, the problem with a player dropping 'the lot'.

The Key Point BonusUse just the major cities, so I dunno what they are, I guess:Susa, Ur, Nineveh, BabylonI've never studied Ancient History, but those 4 would be in there, I'm guessing another 2 or 3 would be good then have a structure like you described above.

I would prefer to see something like the first option, but that is somewhat unmanageable, and the second option is a good balance between allowing open play and ensuring certain game types aren't farcical.